Starting in 2013, the ARIES INSTRUMENTS Co. (in Ukraine) begins to offer optical systems/mirrors figured with best in the world technology in optics figuring, so called Ion Milling, Ion Beam Figuring (IM and IBF). Just google "Ion milling" or "Ion Beam Figuring" and see what is what. Our extremely smooth and precise optics surpass any other made with less advanced technology. In the same time our optics made with IM is priced much lower than similar IM made optics from other high tech companies like Zygo, Tinsley, Eastman-Kodak.

For our optics, the limit of the precision are errors caused by substrate hardness inhomogeneity! Only they put the limit. Very probably, you can't find better optics that ARIES even if you will spend huge amount of time. You will be extremely hard pressed to find an optics which is close in smoothness to optics made in ARIES with IM applied.

For many years, upon exclusive agreement, we have supplied our IM optics to the most famous american Ritchey-Chretien telescopes manufacturer - the RCOS. We supplied many hundreds of optical sets to them helping to rise their excellent reputation as the world leading company in R-C telescopes manufacturing.

Our recent expansion allows us to make more optics with IM technology applied. We now changed the configurations of some R-C syetms we making for RCOS and so, ATM-res and other professional telescopes makers now have the opportunities to buy our standard serial R-C systems 12.5" F/8, 14,5" F/9, 16" F/8 and F/9, 20" F/8.1, 24" F/8. Buying such optics directly from us will allow you to build the most advanced R-C telescopes in the world at a fraction of the cost they cost from professional manufacturers. You can build a R-C telescope(s) with best available anywhere optics for the same or lower price that some professional telescope manufacturers offer with optics which is substandard for us.

Upon custom orders we can also produce much more advanced R-C systems with faster primary mirrors (down to F/1.5) and system F/D as low as F/3,8.
Of course at a price.

We also open to negotiate any special optics you may need.

All, who is interested contact me via PM or better at aries55@yandex.ru

We mostly work upon custom orders. Each customer usually require his own optics size and parameters and a lead time. This is always a subject to negotiate. If you have your specific needs let me know, please, via e-mail.

Valery. I would like some kind of comparison for your prices, not a solid estimate, but a way to gauge how the technogy will impact pricing. For instance, I will hopefully be in the market for a 12 1/2 inch F/20 Dall-Kirkham in the not too distant future. We have a pretty good quality set of optics being made by Royce at 3200.00 with standard coatings. Can you give a ballpark figure on what a similar set from you would cost?

Whenever someone comes out like this, and don't at least provide an estimated price, it's a sign for me to stay clear. I will not under any circumstance be able to afford it and I simply don't even consider it further, even if it is something I would really like to have.

Whenever someone comes out like this, and don't at least provide an estimated price, it's a sign for me to stay clear. I will not under any circumstance be able to afford it and I simply don't even consider it further, even if it is something I would really like to have.

Clear skies!
Thomas, Denmark

A long time experience tells us the following:

1. Every customer for such high tech optics has his own requirements for an optical system: F/number for primary, f/number for system, mirror substrate shape, thickness, required wave front precision, desired lead time, coating.
2. There is no serial production, exclude we have made for years for RCOS. However we can't spread the price info, cause we have exclusive agreement for such an optics.
The only serial production we have remained at the stock due to changes in new systems geometry, is quite limited. They will be no longer available after this optics (only few sets) will be sold out.
3. It is impractical to make such optics for stock in hope for occasional selling. The practice shows us that when we have a spare optics (made for critical orders to insure the lead time) at stock, there is a very very slim probability that such spare optics will be suitable for anybody's requirements. Such optics require from many months to years to sell it. Very often we re-grind it and make new custom ordered optics.

4. If not take into account exclusive agreement for serial production for telescopes manufacturers, all such optics is custom ordered and so, the subject to negotiate all parameters and, naturally, the price.

If you are really interested, create you own requirements for the optics you do need and we will estimate it's price and lead time.

The first stage - the APO objective ( 203mm F/6,5) with a single DOE has been made more than a year ago and showed us that we really have the technology that allows us to make so small scale diffraction optical element that it delivers 1/20 wave precision.
This was a test of our ability to make such optical elements. Unfortunately, an objective with a single DOE is not practically useable in a wide spectral range. To make a truly useful APO objective with DOE, we need to use two DOE in the objective. In this case all unwanted orders of diffraction will be attenuated and the image will be clean.
So, we are at this second stage - experimenting with double DOE configuration. You can see how it works (on a simplified level) googling "Canon Diffraction Optics".

Valery. I would like some kind of comparison for your prices, not a solid estimate, but a way to gauge how the technogy will impact pricing. For instance, I will hopefully be in the market for a 12 1/2 inch F/20 Dall-Kirkham in the not too distant future. We have a pretty good quality set of optics being made by Royce at 3200.00 with standard coatings. Can you give a ballpark figure on what a similar set from you would cost?

The IB optics of such configuration will be significantly more expensive cause of following reasons:

1. This is a serial (not a single for Royse) system. So, all the tooling and test bench cost will be at your charge.2. Substrate is of cheap glass, not a zero expansion expensive glass.3. Precision of RMS<= 0.01 or so require another labor and equipment work (from the manufacturing to tests). Double the precision is not double the cost, it will at least triple the cost.At the amateur level, say, RMS=0.04 does not costs 2x as much as RMS=0.08. It costs less. However, as higher you go in the precision requirements, the cost starts to be exponential.

Such optics is for serious telescope projects or for those, who clearly understand that he need to pay premium price for extra precision.

Soooo, this is most likely out of the price range of ATMers, and more for PTMers. (professional telescope makers). Sounds like the "old technology" isn't too far different from the new.

If someone flipping a switch is going to cost more than someone hand figuring a mirror,......I guess I'll stick with Royce. I hope you find enough need for higher end professional instruments, but there can't be a whole lot of ATMers wealthy enough to consider this a worthwhile alternative.

I think it's a bit more involved than you are thinking. They actually do all the same stuff as making a mirror or lens as normal. It's just that at the end when it's close to perfect, the go another (involved) step farther. That's the ion milling part. I read they are at least 1/6th wave before that even starts.

As I also understand it, the process used to verify things are going correctly is much more involved. This is the interferometry measurements as the figuring is being done. This is done multiple times to ensure things are going right instead of maybe at the end to verify how close things are.

All of this together adds up and on top o f which there isn't any sort of amortizing that can be applied to some parts. The difference though is at the end the result is absolutely perfect and not just this one is really good vs. that one was exceptional. There is no exceptional, they're all the same, all perfect.

It's not something unique to ARIES though, it's going to apply anywhere this process is followed. I don't like it because I can't afford it! hey we all want perfect!

However, your point about what is needed is an important one. Perfect at x size is ideal, but x+25% of very good might be a good alternative.

However, your point about what is needed is an important one. Perfect at x size is ideal, but x+25% of very good might be a good alternative.

Not for high resolution works. The system with 1/6 wave amplitude error can easily be 0.8 Strehl only. The system with 1/10 - 1/15 wave amplitude and RMS about 0.015 wave and less is essentially perfect. The star images is significantly different in these instruments and images of planets will be same much different.
Imperfect diffraction picture is much more prone to seeing destroying factor than a perfect diffraction picture. In a perfect instrument one will observe planets with full resolution and contrast much more often than in average level instrument.

As an example - the friend of mine has a 9" F/13.5 Mak made with about 1/5-6 wave optics and honest Strehl is about 0.9. He has used and my own lager 10" MCT with 1/15 optics and RMS <0.01 wave. He observed planets MUCH more successful with larger instrument (with my one). Our daily experience tell us otherwise - smaller telescope is less prone to seeing destroying factor. Yes, but only in the case of equal optical quality of both instruments. In your and Joe example a 25% larger scope will surely loose. And, in the case of 16" scope, a larger 25% will not be cheaper at all! 2x larger cost of mirrors substrate, 50% larger cost for tube mechanics and another class of mount. All is not so easy as it may seems at the first quick glance.

So Valery, I understand the theory and have seen the effect that the better quality has on the diffraction pattern. However, my own experience and seemingly that in practice as shown here on CN in the planetary imaging forum suggests that larger instruments of lesser than perfect quality will equal or best the smaller perfect ones. Maybe 25% isn't the right number, but practice seems to support it.

My C14 routinely pulls out more detail than the best images I've ever had in the 10". I know it doesn't have the smoothness of the 10's optics, but it's far from a dog. It could be actually very decent as I know there are some of these Edge 14's in the 0.97 strehl range. Still, history has shown them to rarely be in the same league as the best APO's, Mak's, etc. Yet I have never seen an image from one of those that betters the numerous ones being put out by the many C14 owners.

So the question is why?

The only thing I can take from it is that if you throw enough acceptable quality aperture at it, you will match or better the perfect quality smaller optic. I think this has been proven at smaller sizes as well and of course there are variables to consider as well (larger means more thermal issues, more cost, more mount, what is an "acceptable" quality level, how much bigger exactly, etc.).

The key words in your detailed explanations are "in the planetary imaging". Lucky imaging and followed processing technique with contrast boosting is another case. My reasoning was about visual planetary works - a real time process.Lucky imaging is a post-factum reconstruction process. Here a larger aperture wins. But, still to a certain degree. There is a threshold due to seeing. Where this threshold aperture size I don't know.And for planetary ccd imaging no need to order 12" DK by Royce. 12" Meade SCT will be absolutely enough.

However, you can contact Roland Christen and he will send you some samples of deep sky pictures taken by Tony Hallas with 14,5" IM optics. There, as Roland mentioned to me, some small (on the pictures) faint distant galaxies which show such delicate details that are not seen on pictures with larger scopes with less perfect optics.

The first stage - the APO objective ( 203mm F/6,5) with a single DOE has been made more than a year ago and showed us that we really have the technology that allows us to make so small scale diffraction optical element that it delivers 1/20 wave precision.
This was a test of our ability to make such optical elements. Unfortunately, an objective with a single DOE is not practically useable in a wide spectral range. To make a truly useful APO objective with DOE, we need to use two DOE in the objective. In this case all unwanted orders of diffraction will be attenuated and the image will be clean.
So, we are at this second stage - experimenting with double DOE configuration. You can see how it works (on a simplified level) googling "Canon Diffraction Optics".

Valery,

nice to hear something new about your diffraction optics project. On the other hand, I quite surprise that you called it already 'H-bomb' without using a double diffraction element, like Canon. Anybody who has a clue about optics knows that a single element will not give go results.
Nevertheless, I wish your progress and success.